(영문) 창원지방법원김해시법원 2020.05.14 2020가단15

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원김해시법원 2020.05.14 2020가단15

청구이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On the ground that the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 8,460,000 for the goods from August 1, 2017 to October 2, 2017, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for the payment of the goods (this Court 2019 Ghana122050) at this court around December 3, 2019, and this court on December 11, 2019, issued a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter referred to as the “decision on performance recommendation of this case”) with the purport that “the Plaintiff would pay KRW 8,460,00 to the Defendant, and delay damages therefor,” and the said decision on performance recommendation became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in the defect in the goods supplied by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff suffered considerable damage, and there was no signature from the transaction documents that the Plaintiff did not receive, and 3.2 million won out of the price of the goods was already paid.

B. According to the reasoning of the evidence No. 3 (the total amount receivable is stated in the trading statement dated September 25, 2017, signed by the Plaintiff’s person in charge of the side of the claim) and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the Defendant has a claim against the Plaintiff for the purchase price of KRW 8,460,000.

The plaintiff alleged that he paid KRW 3.2 million out of the above price of the above goods, but it appears that he paid other claims against the defendant other than the above claims, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the ground for repayment of the above plaintiff.

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that there was a defect in the goods supplied by the defendant, but it is not sufficient to recognize it only by the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원서부지원 2014.10.17 2014가합3338

-창원지방법원 2017.03.14 2016가단19759

-수원지방법원 2019.10.01 2018나12534

-의정부지방법원 2017.05.25 2016나10903

-대전지방법원 2015.08.13 2015가합377